I'll explain the atheist position. I have already said that I can't disprove God. What I am saying is that there is no evidence God exists. Kapish?
There is evidence for evolution, gravity, etc., but none for God. It is all in your heads people. That is what they call faith. Trying to give our lives some special meaning and trying to not face the facts that this is it.
If the Big Bang needed God to start it, what started God? A God that has been silent for over 13 billion years.
I am not posting here because of superiority or to change the minds of the reality deniers (those who don't believe in human evolution for example). I post for the lurkers.
I do the same when I post pro-Israel information. I'm out to unbrainwash the young and also anyone on the fence. And I do a great job of it.
I've turned many an atheist into an Israeli supporter. Atheists tend to be very liberal and can't identify who the real victim is many times.
I deal in reality. Evidence is important to me. A supernatural event could sway me, but I have yet to know one that is true. Our minds are powerful when it comes to inventing the supernatural. We are naturally superstitious for example. But we evolved this feature in early man as a way to make sense of things we couldn't understand...it helped us cope and survive which is what evolution is all about.
The Exodus never happened. Great documentary on the history of Jews: The Bible Unearthed.
http://video.google.com/videos.....amp;tab=wv

Don't forget to rate them 5's. I like to enlighten, but I also like 5 out of 5's.

Faith should be taught at home and places of worship. It has no business in the school system.
_________________
Just keep God out of the public sector and I'll keep voting for the Tories.
http://www.baconeatingatheistjew.blogspot.com/

BEAJ, this is your idea of "heavy" research? Are you serious or pulling my leg? When I asked who you were reading, I was looking for something, I dunno, SCHOLARLY in nature.
And no, what you provided isn't scholarly. Not even close.
Jesus Never Existed is probably the worst of the sites. Their treatment of paganism and Mithraism in particular is truly disastrous. Their treatment of Gnosticism was even worse. They somehow move from "there were Gnostics" to "the first believers in Jesus maintained he was an ethereal spirit, much like other sky/sun-gods" as though all early Christians were gnostics. They don't even explain how gnosticism made its way into the church. It developed out of Greek philosophy and the notion that the spirit is pure but the body, which is material, is carnal. Since Jesus is supposed to be perfect, He could therefore not have a human body but could only be a spirit.
But back to your "heavy" research.
Bidstrup is just as bad.
His "discussion" of Biblical translation is... well, what can I say? There really is no discussion. Biblical translation is no small matter, and those involved take it very seriously. There is an army of material out there explaining how it is done. If you want a primer, you can start with http://www.bible-researcher.com/index.html and then move on to http://www.monergism.com/direc.....ibliology/. If you want something "unbiased," (by your definition, non-religious in nature) go here: http://www.macdiv.ca/home.php and then read ALL the material required for these courses: http://www.macdiv.ca/courses/courses.php?area=BS. If you are still convinced that Jesus is entirely mythical at the end of all your reading, then there is nothing I can do to help you.
Incidentally, just because a bunch of philosophers throughout history decided to reject the Bible, they aren't correct because there are a lot of them. In fact, the number of people willing to reject or accept God have absolutely no bearing on His existence.

Again, I've seen nothing to make me even think that Jesus ever existed upon reading and reading. I know people working on scholarly papers right now on the topic.
I don't buy your refutations and excuses, though I expected them.
I'll look at your links, but I doubt they will convince me.
Someone having a personal conflict wrote this yesterday:
http://atapestryofnonsense.blo.....nance.html
He bring up many of the points I agree with. Basically, you have to make excuses why there is no secular evidence for the "Greatest Man Who Ever Lived" To me, that is the basis of a fairy tale.

Incidentally, what makes you think that purely secular sources would be better than religious ones? If you really wanted to be unbiased, wouldn't it be a better idea to examine both sets of sources to see who does the more scholarly/better researched work?

Incidentally, what makes you think that purely secular sources would be better than religious ones? If you really wanted to be unbiased, wouldn't it be a better idea to examine both sets of sources to see who does the more scholarly/better researched work?

McMaster DIVINITY College? C'mon Ruth.
Secular history sources are unbiased, religious sources are not. Jesus has absolutely no secular history going for him as a real person. Maybe one day a letter mentioning him and the commotion he supposedly started dated 32 AD will show up and then I would have to reconsider my position. Until then. Paul invented him.

No.
That should be MCMASTER Divinity College. If you think it's non secular, then you obviously never went toMac and never took a Religious Studies course.
Which I have.
More than once in fact.
Let me assure you, these courses are SECULAR in nature, by any measurable standard.

Quote:

Secular history sources are unbiased,

Based on what?
There is bias in everything. You either assume there is no God or you assume there is a God. Both positions are "biased."

Point in your favour: that blog is obviously put together by a student, and the work is better and closer to what I would call scholarly research
Point against you: Jesus cannot be a Gnostic invention, since Gnosticism developed after Christianity.

Ruth, who cares if he is a student or not. He has found that Gnosticism occurred before Christianity from secular sources.
Again, anything that uses the bible as a history book is not an unbiased source. Might as well use Hubbards book on Scientology as an unbiased source too or the dreams of Joseph Smith or The Cat In The Hat.

I am not assuming no God or no Jesus, I just see no evidence to make me consider assuming either. Just like an invisible man under my bed. If I make the claim, I should be able to show you some proof of his existence that is secular and unbiased.

Ruth, who cares if he is a student or not. He has found that Gnosticism occurred before Christianity from secular sources.

He is wrong.... well, at least partially wrong.
Gnosticism, as I already mentioned, stems from the Greek philosophical notions of the division between body and spirit. The spirit is inherently pure. The body is inherently carnal. Therefore, there is a divide between the two and they do not properly coexist. The Gnostics argued that Jesus was Divine but not human. How could he be? This would mean that he took on the body, something viewed to be inherently carnal. That would impact His perfection.
So, the ROOTS of Gnosticism did pre-date Christianity. I can't argue that. However, Gnosticism as a movement occurred after Christianity was established as a faith. It should be noted that at that time, it was referred to as The Way. The title Christianity came later.

Quote:

I should be able to show you some proof of his existence that is secular and unbiased.

Again, you still have not answered my question. What makes something secular inherently unbiased? "Because it is" is not an answer. Show me the lack of bias in secular thinking, and I will believe you.

Ruth, you are debating someone with a deeply held bias against anything that he deems to be "religious". My guess is that theatheistjew is simply not capable of overcoming this bias. He will never accept any form of research that comes from a religious source. It would be like you accepting a polemic on Judaism from a radical Muslim cleric; he does not want to admit into evidence the work of people that do not belong to his religion.

Ruth, you are debating someone with a deeply held bias against anything that he deems to be "religious". My guess is that theatheistjew is simply not capable of overcoming this bias. He will never accept any form of research that comes from a religious source. It would be like you accepting a polemic on Judaism from a radical Muslim cleric; he does not want to admit into evidence the work of people that do not belong to his religion.

Again, since you invent words, your post has absolutely no meaning to me. Just childish gibberish.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou can attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum